Judgment :- 1. The challenge in this writ petition is directed against Ext. P-3 order dated 6-8-1981 passed by the 1st respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin (Revenue Divisonal Officer) whereunder the first respondent declined to exercise jurisdiction under S.34(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 1969 (the Act). In the opinion of the first respondent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was not competent to entertain this application. 2. S.34(1) of the Act provides for an application to be made with the previous sanction of the Registrar to the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the society functions for securing the records and properties of the society, if the committee of a society is reconstituted at a general meeting of the society or the committee of a society is removed by the Registrar under S.32 or anew committee or administrator or administrators is or are appointed under S.33 or if the society is ordered to be wound up under S.71 and the outgoing members of the committee refuse to hand over charge of the records and property of the society to the new committee or administrator or administrators or the liquidator, as the case may be, or if an outgoing president or secretary who is the custodian of the records and property of a society refuses to hand overcharge of the records and property of the society to his successor. It is on the basis of S.34(1) of the Act the secretary of the society has made an application for securing the custody of the documents in the possession of the members of the erstwhile committee. 3. It is on the basis of S.34(1) of the Act the secretary of the society has made an application for securing the custody of the documents in the possession of the members of the erstwhile committee. 3. Sub-section (4) of S.3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) provides: "(4) Where, under any law, other than this Code, the functions exercisable by a Magistrate relate to (a) which involve the appreciation or sifting of evidence or the formulation of any decision which exposes any person to any punishment or penalty or detention in custody pending investigation, inquiry or trial or would have the effect of sending him for trial before any Court, they shall, subject to the provisions of this Code, be exercisable by a Judicial Magistrate, or (b) which are administrative or executive in nature, such as, the granting of a licence, the suspension or cancellation of a licence, sanctioning a prosecution or withdrawing from a prosecution, they shall, subject as aforesaid, be exercisable by an Executive Magistrate." The purpose of S 34 of the Act is to ensure that the records and the property of a society retained by the members of an outgoing committee even after the reconstitution of the committee or the appointment of an administrator are traced and brought into the custody of the succeeding committee or the administrator appointed. To prevent the abuse or the indiscriminate use of the enabling provision contained in that section, sub-section (1) thereof by way of safeguard provides that it is only with the previous sanction of the Registrar an application could be made to the Magistrate to secure the records and property from the members of the outgoing committee. The nature of the power exercised by the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of S.34 of the Act is not such as would fall within the ambit of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of S 3 of the Code. The nature of the power exercised by the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of S.34 of the Act is not such as would fall within the ambit of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of S 3 of the Code. The action taken in pursuance of the order passed by the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of S 34 of the Act would not expose any person to any punishment, penalty or detention in custody pending investigation, inquiry or trial or would have an effect of sending him for trial before any Court What is envisaged is an order to the Police Officer not below the rank of a Sub Inspector to enter and search any place where the records and property of the society are kept or are believed to have been kept, and to seize such records and property and produce them before the new committee which was holding the office. On a proper consideration of the scope and ambit of the power to be exercised by the Magistrate under S.34 (2) of the Act, I have little doubt that the Executive Magistrate in terms of the provisions contained in S.3 (4) (b) of the Code is competent to entertain and deal with an application made under sub-section (1) of S.34 of the Act. 4. In the light of the foregoing discussion I hold that the 1st respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him under S.34 (2) of the Act read with S.3 (4) (b) of the Code. Ext. P3 order is, therefore, quashed and the 1st respondent, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin (Revenue Divisional Officer) is directed to take back Ext.P2 application made by the Secretary of the petitioner society, supported by Ext. P1 sanction order passed by the Registrar, to the file and dispose it of according to law. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. There will be no order as to costs. A carbon copy of this judgment may be granted to the Government Pleader free of charge and to the counsel for the petitioner on usual terms if applied for in that behalf.